(a) Eligibility for defendant in a lawsuit claiming registration of collateral security based on subrogation of the person who has performed the obligation;

(b) A portion of joint and several sureties and a surety's property to secure another's obligation

(a)in the registration of transfer based on subrogation, the person liable for registration is not the owner of the mortgaged real estate, but the current mortgagee;

B. It is unreasonable to determine the share to be borne by several joint and several guarantors and the suretys to secure another's property in proportion to the number of persons

Article 482 of the Civil Act, Article 148 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Chang Ho Ho-ho

Ethalty et al.

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The defendant Industrial Bank of Korea received support from the North Korean District Court on July 7, 1981 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 1981. The defendant Industrial Bank of Korea will implement the registration procedure for transfer of the right to collateral security on the ground of subrogation on July 3, 1985, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 110,000,000,000 and the secured debt amount of the non-party 1,000,030.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case against the defendant in this case is all dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiff, defendant Jong-sung and the same sex white material shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea shall be borne by

Defendant Jeong Jong-sung and the Industrial Bank of Korea jointly with the Plaintiff on July 7, 1981 regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 35782, which was received by North Korean District Court on July 7, 1981, implemented the registration procedure for the transfer of collateral security based on the subrogation on July 3, 1985, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 110,000,000,000, and the secured debt amount of the non-party corporation’s right to collateral security, which was set forth in the separate sheet No. 35782, a company

The reservation on October 27, 1986 to sell and purchase the above real estate between the defendant Jeong Jong-sung and the defendant Sung-sung shall be revoked.

Defendant Sung Jae-in, which had been completed as of October 30, 1986 by the same court No. 74094, with respect to the above real estate, ordered to implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer and preservation provisional registration.

1. We examine the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Jeong-sung.

On July 6, 1981, the plaintiff and the defendant Jeong-sung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) obtained loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter the defendant bank) for small and medium enterprise funds, the non-party company becomes joint surety at the same time, and real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter the non-party 1 real estate) and real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter the plaintiff 2 real estate of this case), which are owned by the plaintiff and real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter the non-party 2 real estate of this case), as joint collateral for the above real estate, as the joint collateral registration of the non-party company and the owner of the non-party 2 real estate of this case was not the owner of the non-party 10,000,000 won, and the non-party 1 company was not the owner of the above real estate, and thus, the plaintiff can be paid for the above real estate within the scope of the right of indemnity of the non-party 2.

2. We examine the plaintiff's claims against the defendant bank.

In light of the above evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 13-5, No. 13-2, and No. 1-4, No. 13, 17, 14, and 18, and No. 10-6, Co., Ltd., Ltd., which were held by the court 1-6, were not jointly and severally liable for reimbursement of 80,000 won for the above real estate 1-1, No. 400, Co., Ltd., Ltd., which were held by the court 1-1, No. 1-2, No. 1-6, and No. 1-6, Co., Ltd., Ltd., to the extent of 1-6, No. 97, Co., Ltd., Ltd., to the extent of 1-6, No.

However, the legal representative of the defendant Jeong-sung asserted that the non-party company is a so-called one of the plaintiff's entire shares and operated with his funds and the above debt against the defendant bank is an individual debt of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff who is substantially in the principal debtor's position cannot claim against the defendant Jeong-sung who is merely a joint guarantor and a surety's surety due to the repayment of the debt. Thus, the non-party company is proved to have not been able to claim against the non-party 1 as a witness since it is proved that the plaintiff owned the entire shares of the company and actually is a one-person company controlled by the plaintiff 1, the non-party company, and the witness's present testimony. However, although the non-party 6-1, 2 (each shareholder's list), 3 through 10 (each shareholder's acquisition of shares), the non-party 7-1 through 7 (each new shares subscription) and the non-party 6 (each new shares subscription)-1 to 4 (each new shares subscription).

The legal representative of the defendant Jong-sung was a director who received only monthly wages from the non-party company and was engaged in the above joint and several liability and physical guarantee on his duties. Thus, the above defendant asserted that the non-party company did not bear the liability to guarantee the debt incurred after November 10, 1984 when the non-party company retired from the company. Thus, the above joint and several liability and physical guarantee contract of the defendant Jong-sung were uniformly established in the qualification of the director of the company, and the change of the director was made in the form of a new joint and several liability transfer when the director changed, and there is no evidence to prove that the above change was made in the form of a new joint and several liability transfer of the director. Thus, the above joint and several liability guarantee contract of the non-party company was prepared in the way of the above evidence No. 1-2, 3, 5 (each bank transaction agreement), 7, 8, 10 (each debt joint and several liability guarantee), 9, 111 (each certificate of personal seal impression), and 2 (the copy of the register of the company).

In other words, the above attorney agreed that the plaintiff would cancel the registration of establishment of a collateral on the real estate No. 1 of this case if he/she is jointly and severally guaranteed by the plaintiff even after he/she retired from the non-party company. Thus, it is unreasonable to claim the registration of establishment of a collateral on the ground of subrogation by the plaintiff who is obligated to pay the secured debt of the above right to collateral security and to cancel the registration in accordance with the above agreement. However, the plaintiff's allegation of the above legal representative is not accepted, since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff agreed to cancel the registration of establishment of a collateral on the ground of subrogation, in addition to the statement of No. 8 of the above rejection and the testimony of the witness Lee Jong-sung, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff agreed to make the plaintiff cancel the above registration of establishment

Furthermore, the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 482 of the Civil Code provide for the reasonable scope of exercise of rights between each other in cases where several persons are subrogated with respect to the exercise of the right of indemnity by the plaintiff and the defendant Jeong Jong-sung. The provisions stipulate that "in cases of the property to secure another's property, the value of the property shall be proportional to the value of the property", and in cases between the guarantor (including joint and several guarantors; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the property to secure another's property, the creditor shall be subrogated in proportion to the number of persons". However, as it does not provide for the portion of the property to secure another's property as such, it is reasonable to determine the share of the property in proportion to the value of the collateral in proportion to the number of persons of the guarantor and the property to secure another's property, the Civil Code provides that the personal guarantee shall be proportional to the number of persons of the two guarantors, as well as that of the property to secure another's property which is provided in proportion to the value of the property to be provided in proportion to the value of the property to the above 60-mentioned's property.

3. We examine the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant’s sexual white material.

On October 30, 1986, the court received this Court No. 74094 on the first real estate of this case and filed for the cancellation of the above provisional registration on the ground of this provisional registration on October 30, 1986, and there is no dispute between the parties to the provisional registration for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer on the ground of the pre-sale agreement as of October 27, 1986. The plaintiff's legal representative is likely to cause the plaintiff's right to claim compensation against the first real estate of this case of the defendant bank to exercise the right to collateral security against the first real estate of this case on the ground that the plaintiff, who has the right to claim compensation as above, could exercise the right to claim compensation on the ground of the pre-sale agreement as of October 27, 1986. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above provisional registration was completed without any reason, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above provisional registration was the subject of the pre-sale agreement and the pre-sale of real estate of this case at the same time.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Jeong-sung is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the defendant bank is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of collateral transfer based on subrogation on July 3, 1985 with the amount of KRW 43,242,030, the right to collateral security, which consists of KRW 110,000,000 for the non-party company and the maximum amount of the claim against the plaintiff as of July 7, 1981, as of the receipt of this Court No. 35782 against the plaintiff on July 7, 1981, and the defendant bank is liable to implement the procedure for registration of collateral security based on subrogation on July 3, 1985. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant bank shall be accepted. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Sung-

Judges Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)